” I *also* notice that you have not condemned the actual homophobic hate speech on this thread by “freddy””

So now you are accusing everyone who didn’t condemn Freddy’s Homophobic hate speech? This would mean you are accusing Berntard, Bill and Sloth of being homophobes… why would you do that? They didn’t condemn you for suggesting people be beaten while you watch…regardless of sexual preference. Leave them out of this!

I see we’re back to your standard avoidance tactic of picking up an irrelevance and hammering away at it instead of admitting that you are a lying shit etc.

This is what you are now avoiding:

* * *

Here’s something you need to get through *your* thick, dishonest skull (sp) Betty:

Fake climate agnosia is crypto-denial.

You cannot use “uncertainty” as an excuse for inaction. It is yet another denier false equivalence. We can be uncertain about just how bad things will get this century, but not that they will get bad. That’s why we had that little lesson about climate sensitivity. To stop your lying denials. But it didn’t work – you kept on lying (nailed again at #83 previous page).

How bad it gets is strongly determined by how much more CO2 gets emitted over the next few decades. The surest way of reducing *uncertainty* is to reduce emissions.

Liars like you who try to use “uncertainty” as an excuse for inaction are enemies of the species.

You need to face up to the vileness of what you are doing instead of denying that your behaviour is vile.

As I said, old Betty cannot debate. I asked him if he thinks its OK to experiment with complex adaptive systems whilst knowing that the potential consequences might tilt either way , although current evidence, if he ever bothered to read the primary literature, suggests a lot of worrying signs.

His reply? Aside from bluff and duck and cover, essentially it boils down to this: the consequences may show net negative effects, net positive effects, or no effects at all. His unspoken conclusion? It must be to continue with business-as-usual. At least continue the ‘experiment’ until there is 100% proof that food webs are fraying and ecosystems are collapsing. He doesn’t say this, but he most certainly infers it. Oh, and don’t read the primary literature, because even though meta-analyses may point out worrying trends and underlying mechanisms, we should ignore that and wait until we see the negative effects right before our own eyes. Of course by then it will be too late to do anything, but the Betula’s of this world don’t give a rat’s ass about that.

This is the debating strategy of Betula, who clearly thinks of himself as an intellectual heavyweight with a caustic wit. I also posed some analogies to him – tropical forest destruction for example – which he won’t touch with a barge pole. He avoided the stoichiometry comment because he doesn’t know anything about the field.

He’s a real comedian. A lightweight debater. No wonder that even the regular deniers here are abandoning him.

” i welcome warmer times,”, says Freddy, as well as, “…normal people like warm weather, you asshole”

_”Pakistan in recent weeks has suffered its most severe heat wave in decades, with temperatures reaching as high as 51 degrees Celsius (124 Farenheit) on May 19 in Larkana, a city of two million people in southern Sindh province. This was the highest temperature for that month recorded there since 1998, when the mercury peaked at almost 53 Celsius (127 Fahrenheit).
Lahore, Punjab province’s capital of about 15 million population, was the hottest city in the country on May 24 at 47.4 Celsius (117 Fahrenheit), hotter than any May since 1954.

“Such extreme temperatures – which are becoming more common as a result of climate change – are an enormous health threat.

“They also make almost every function of daily life a nearly intolerable struggle – including, for millions, trying to earn a living.”

_ “In the summer of 2012, a heat wave took place, leading to more than 82 heat-related deaths across the United States and Canada.[1][2] An additional twenty-two lives were lost in the resultant June 2012 North American derecho. This long-lived, straight-line wind and its thunderstorms cut electrical power to 3.7 million customers.[3] Over 500,000 were still without power on July 6, as the heat wave continued.”

“The heatwave has also contributed to the record-shattering 2012 North American drought, which has caused massive crop failures throughout the Midwest and most likely will cause food prices to rise. This drought affects 80% of the contiguous US as of July 24, and is considered the worst drought since the 1950s.”

That’s just this year and last year. A few years ago 10’s of thousands died in Europe and Russia.

Maybe Freddy the retard can tell all those Pakistanis this year, and those in the US last, to just enjoy the heat and stop whining.
And Betula, another retard, can tell us how plants are loving it under heatwave and drought conditions, not to mention when it floods, because, you know, CO2 is not only plant food but it gives them extraordinary powers to thrive, not only during droughts but under water as well.

One of the positive things, if you can call it that, to come out the climate change debates is that it identifies the most moronic, ignorant, delusional, mentally unbalanced and dishonest sub-group of humanity. And here we have some of finest examples _ Freddy, O’louse, Betula, Karen, GSW, Pentax, etc.

This is more of Freddy’s contributions:

YOU ARE SO RIDICULOUS, BUT BEFORE ALL YOU ARE INSANE GREEN-SOCIALST STINKING AND DIRTY SUPER

ASSHOLES WHO WANT TO DESTROY CAPITALISM, GENERAL WELFARE, INDIVIDUAL HAPPINESS OF BILLIONS OF

HUMANS AND POISON EVERYBODY WITH YOUR STUPID IDEOLOGY OF THE ROTTEN CLIMATE CHURCH WITH THEIR

PAGAN COMPUTER GAMES.

ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!’

hahahaha, ha!!!

insane biology-ignorant, MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i have a university doctorate, AND YOU

IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

learn to live with the fact
THAT THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN GAT AND CO2

MORON!!!!!!!!!!

before he says,

“@billtroll, your junk text has no value” and to Jeff, “the content of your “text” is pure shit”.

In the mean time, how are you progressing with composing answers to those simple questions? Do you require another few weeks of thinking time? Do you want to conduct a little experiment, and see how long it takes teenagers of readers here to answer the questions?

Perhaps we could conduct another experiment afterward, and see how long it takes those same teenagers to find the same answers using a web search engine – even that easy option seems to have confounded you…

In the mean time, how are you progressing with composing answers to those simple questions? Do you require another few weeks of thinking time? Do you want to conduct a little experiment, and see how long it takes teenagers of readers here to answer the questions?

Perhaps we could conduct another experiment afterward, and see how long it takes those same teenagers to find the same answers using a web search engine – even that easy option seems to have confounded you…

@jp pussysmell: the pakstanis should go into the shadow of trees, or to the basements of their houses, switch on air conditioning, go swimming in the river, i don’t care, what does it have to do with us, they have to master their live as we do here.

what you could do is to travel there with your vacuum cleaner and provide cooling to sweating people by blowung air into their faces

pakistanis, russians etc. with snustrokes could fly to antarctica for cooling, at the moment its at least -40C minimum (south pole) cold there: NO ICE MELTING AND NO SEA LEVEL RISE.

bernard troll, i owe you still some education as you are so devoid of ANY knowledge what life is

you stated in an incredibly whiny and ridiculous way that a little bit of additional warming provides stress to species thereby endangering the survival of many species

WHAT AN INSANE ARSE SHIT IS SUCH AN OPINION DEVOID OF ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LIFE.

LISTEN, YOU PLAIN IDIOT AS SILLY AS A THICK WOODEN POST: ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CAPABILITIES OF ORGANISMS IS ADAPTATION TO THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT. I KNOW THAT YOU AGW FUCKWITS ARE REALLY SO STUPID AND UNINFORMED THAT YOU AGW CHURCH FANATICS DON’t EVEN KNOW THIS MOST ELEMENTARY FUNCTIONS OF LIVING ORGANISMS!!!!!!

Gee wizz, Batty at #1 there, you really is the King of Think: yep, alright I’ll condemn the pointless Freddy for being a homophobic twonker as well as a misogynist, sexually insecure turkey – see above – amongst his other numerous sins.

Freddy,
Thanks, buddy. I’m not making it up when I say that you do make me laugh. If that was your intention, then _ again _ thanks. But I suspect the comedy is not intentional; I suspect you might be an escapee from a mental institution.

The likes of GSW, Karen and O’louse etc. are dull, stupid and totally boring. But you, although being incredibly stupid, are very entertaining. By your writing I’d say that you’re still in primary school. Am I right? And how old are you _ 17? 18? older? Anyway, don’t give up, you’ll graduate from year 8 one day. I think you’d better go back to the institution _ they’re looking for you.

“pussysmell”….hahaha. I love your choice of words. I hope you don’t say that to your new girlfriend Karen _ she’d be very offended.

In your post to Bill, you type “self-reflexion”. Did you mean self-reflection, or maybe self-awareness. Don’t go using big words, now. You’ll look stupid, especially when you don’t know how to spell them.

Ask your teacher, or one of the psychiatrists what self-awareness is. But then again, don’t bother. You need an IQ of at least 40 to understand the concept.

To the rest of the denier crew, I’m glad he’s one of yours. It’d be terribly embarrassing if he was an “alarmist”.

In response BBD pointed out that (a) the evidence shows that he wasn’t, and (b) you were highly selective in who you accused of homophobia, ignoring very real and obvious homophobic content in favour of making unsubstantiated claims of homophobia.

Instead of dealing with your own behavioural inadequacies, you named other people (in derogatory terms no less) in a bid to draw a false equivalence. However, those people were not making allegations of homophobic comments of anyone, so they aren’t relevant to observations of you ignoring actual homophobia in place of manufactured allegations of homophobia.

These points are not very hard to understand. I’m not sure which possibility is worse for your reputation – that you clearly don’t understand the basic logic here (and ditto for most of the implications flowing from climate science), or that you think you’re fooling everyone else.

Thanks for the links (to a blog). Did you happen to read any of them in the 30 seconds it took you to find them? They make you look like the complete Jackass you are, since they prove everything I’ve been saying.

1. CO2 fertilization isn’t as insignificant as you and Hardley would have us believe…

“In the climate change debate, it appears to be agreed by everyone that excess CO2 will at least have the direct benefit of increasing photosynthesis, and subsequently growth rate and yield, in virtually any plant species”:

2. The effect of CO2 fertilization is unknown….so how can it be insignificant if you don’t know? And if it’s unknown, how does it “carry weight in the projection of predictions “….IT’S NOT KNOWN. Example:

“The global increase of CO2 is thus a grand biological experiment, with countless complications that make the net effect of this increase very difficult to predict with any appreciable level of detail”.

So let’s see what has been said:

1. #46 pg 7…Hardley claimed I referred to CO2 fert as a “good thing”
I said…..”Is it a bad thing? Or don’t you know”. “And if you don’t know, why don’t you?”

2. Me at #56 pg 7….”And I never said it was a good thing. I said your predictions are predictions based on unknowns…CO2 fertilization being one of them”

3. BDud at #58 pg 7….”A thinly disguised lie”

4. Me at # 68 pg 7….”Prove to me there aren’t any uncertainties or unknowns in predicting future scenarios, prove to me the effect of CO2 fertilization on climate, if any, are certain.”

6. BDud at 74 pg 7…”All the scientists, all the real experts, disagree with you”

7. Me to Hadley at #51 pg 8 Re: The effect of CO2 fertilization…..”The fact is, you don’t know. You can pretend to know…. but then you will be caught in another of your many lies, and I won’t let you forget it.”

8. Me at #17 pg 9 to Hardley….” that I was accurate in saying you are clueless about how CO2 fertilization may fit into the scheme of things”

9. BDud at #19 pg 9….”Another blatant lie from Betty”

10. Me at #88 pg 9….To BDud Re: CO2 fertilization….”I need a bunker buster to get through that thick scull…you have to weigh the effect to determine if it’s net positive or net negative….but since you can’t weigh it, it’s an unknown”

Now, let’s look at a few more quotes from your links…

1. “Because there are so many factors affecting annual terrestrial NPP, atmospheric CO2, air temperature, nutrient and water availability, season length, seasonal temperature development, air pollution and other anthropogenic interferences to name a few, it is very complicated to provide a reliable estimate from knowledge of all relevant processes and their dependencies on physical and biological parameters.”

2. “Doubling atmospheric CO2 is likely going to cause some “greening” of the terrestrial biosphere globally under equilibrium conditions, especially if factors such as water and nutrient availability do not become limiting”

What medication are you being prescribed? Fluphenazine, haloperidol, pimozide, or perhaps tetrabenazine? I’m sorry to tell you that whatever your specialist is offering its not at all controlling your symptomology, although the mind-dulling side effects are extremely apparent.

Do you talk to God like that? What does He think about you using such bad words?

And why do you hate intelligent people so much? Did the class geek once give you a noogie?

Genuine fool or poe, you’re a very sad and particularly damaged individual.

It’s worth pointing out though that you’re completely wrong when you spray:

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CAPABILITIES OF ORGANISMS IS ADAPTATION TO THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT… [snip unnecessary bad language) … YOU AGW CHURCH FANATICS DON’t EVEN KNOW THIS MOST ELEMENTARY FUNCTIONS OF LIVING ORGANISMS!!!!!!

1) Many species have very tight bioclimatic envelopes and cannot adapt beyond a narrow range of conditions. Don’t believe me? Go study emperor penguins, or those dratted polar bears, or any of a whole suit of corals, or mountain pygmy possums, or golden toads. Go back a bit further in time and ask mammoths, and Neanderthals, and dinosaurs about adaptation.

2) Adaptive capacity is intended to cope with the natural variation of the environment in which the organisms have evolved. It is not an effective response to infrequent, extreme natural changes or stochastic events, or to unnatural alterations of the environment wrought by human activity.

3) Ecologists are acutely aware of species’ capacities or otherwise for adaptation, which is why global warming is such a concern.

It’s probably pointless trying to correct you, but given that Betula, GSW, Olaus Petri, KarenMackSunspot, Duff and all the other Denialati never have the integrity to even once correct you, the job falls to one of us who actually has a clue.

Not at all, In fact, the more you try to twist this, the more I will point out BDud’s own words. After all, he is an equal opportunity Denier beating watcher…

Ironic, how he gets upset by words directed at a particular group, however, if that same group were being physically beaten because he puts a “denier” label on them, then he “for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”

How about you Loth? Would you watch the beating of a “denier”? All “deniers” or just a particular group? What if the “Denier” had Downs Syndrome? Will you watch the beating? What if the “Denier” is a senior citizen? Do you watch the beating with BDud? Is there a beating criteria for “Deniers”? Just asking….

I have no idea if BDud is a homophobe…however, I have no problem (given he condones and would watch people be beaten) believing he has sadist qualities.

Since you didn’t condemn what he said (BDuds logic), and since you seem to be protecting him from his own words (my logic), I believe I am required by Deltoid rules to think of you in the same way.

1. BBD made remarks to the effect that if the public understood how badly deniers had screwed them, the public would beat the deniers in the streets – which I think is a fair observation, given what we know about mob mentality when pushed hard enough.

BBD also stated that he would not lift a finger to stop them. Needless to say the latter clause is not a universally held position – despite your attempts to create a distraction from your own problems by projecting it on to other people.

2. Freddie made derogatory remarks about gay people.

3. BBD complained about Freddie gay-bashing – which is the practice of verbally or physically “bashing” people not because of anything they have done, but because of what they are.

4. YOU followed up by trying to introduce the notion of gay people being beaten to the scenario mentioned in (1) by BBD, presumably in an attempt to claim BBD was hypocritical. BBD had not mentioned gay people in that scenario, so you own that. This appears to be an attempt on your part to draw a false equivalence between hypothetical retribution against someone who has caused harm by their actions, and attacking someone for what they are.

5. BBD and others pointed out that gay people simply weren’t relevant to the criteria of (1), which was the category of “those who have caused harm through denial”.

6. BBD also pointed out your impressive selectivity, which I discussed in my previous comment.

No matter how you duck and weave, you’re trying to draw a false equivalence on this matter at (4).

Ironic, how he gets upset by words directed at a particular group, however, if that same group were being physically beaten because he puts a “denier” label on them, then he “for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”

Ironic how people can be upset at police harrassment of black people, but if a black person gets arrested for driving without a license no-one gets upset in the slightest!

Or to put it another way, I pointed out that logic and comprehension are not your strong suits and you helpfully provide confirmatory evidence. As one presidential candidate recently said to the other, please proceed…

““In the climate change debate, it appears to be agreed by everyone that excess CO2 will at least have the direct benefit of increasing photosynthesis, and subsequently growth rate and yield, in virtually any plant species”:

Kindergarten level science. This is like saying because someone eats more junk food, and get fatter, that their inclusive fitness also increases. Carbon is not a limiting nutrient for plants; N and P most certainly are. As plants take up more carbon, this most certainly means that it comes at the expense of N and P. Both N and P play an important role in plant metabolism – such as in secondary chemistry (plant defense) and thus changes in plant tissue stoichiometry will most certainly affect consumers up the food chain. What we will see are changes in herbivore feeding behavior, perhaps quite dramatically, as well as the way higher trophic levels respond at a community level. At the same time, the ability of plants to deal with higher C will be species-specific. This means that the current atmospheric experiment humans are conducting will lead to large competitive asymmetries amongst species growing as neighbors in the same communities. Effectively, the winners will outcompete the losers, leading to much ore simple ecological communities that are more species poor and thus less stable.

The final point is that past periods where the atmosphere had very high concentrations of C02 were not necessarily species-rich. The highest species and genetic richness evolved under comparatively low ambient C02 concentrations. Most importantly, human activities are changing these concentrations at a very rapid rate in evolutionary terms, perhaps faster than in many millions f years at the very least. To extrapolate simple linear conclusions that C02 is an atmospheric fertilizer like Betula and other simpletons do is therefore utter drivel.

Its funny how quickly Betula links into blogs when chellenged but how assiduously he avoids the primary empirical literature. And no matter how much I like Skeptical Science, which is a great blog, the author is also incorrect to simply state that everyone agrees that increasing C02 will increase growth rate and yield in any species. This statement ignores: per capita fitness, seed viability, and a range of other intrinsic physiological properties of plants.

Note how Betula latches onto the one statement that he likes from Sk Sc and goes on to ignore the complexities which follow in the discussion. To him, cause and effect are completely linear. As I have said, the guy can’t debate himself out of a sodden wet paper bag.

# 17 I knew you’d quote mine the links. But to do so you must at least have skimmed them so you know that what they say is:

– based on everything we know, CO2 fertilisation isn’t going to be a net benefit to agriculture under AGW because (a) its effects are constrained by other factors (nitrogen; water) and (b) temperature change will impact productivity in the temperate mid-latitudes.

And no matter how much I like Skeptical Science, which is a great blog, the author is also incorrect to simply state that everyone agrees that increasing C02 will increase growth rate and yield in any species. This statement ignores: per capita fitness, seed viability, and a range of other intrinsic physiological properties of plants.

Note how Betula latches onto the one statement that he likes from Sk Sc and goes on to ignore the complexities which follow in the discussion.

Betty-John Birch continues to screech “misdirection” with all the power of his lungs. What BJB is trying to get us to forget is that he hasn’t responded to this yet:

Fake climate agnosia is crypto-denial.

You cannot use “uncertainty” as an excuse for inaction. It is yet another denier false equivalence. We can be uncertain about just how bad things will get this century, but not that they will get bad. That’s why we had that little lesson about climate sensitivity. To stop your lying denials. But it didn’t work – you kept on lying (nailed again at #83 previous page).

How bad it gets is strongly determined by how much more CO2 gets emitted over the next few decades. The surest way of reducing *uncertainty* is to reduce emissions.

Liars like you who try to use “uncertainty” as an excuse for inaction are enemies of the species.

You need to face up to the vileness of what you are doing instead of denying that your behaviour is vile.

And instead of continuing to behave in a contemptibly dishonest manner.

Ah, David Rose! Could he have conveniently neglected to remember ‘everyone knows’ it’s a fake.

Here’s what appears to be the source (check the date). The author is also a denier – quelle surprise – but makes no claim whatsoever that this is a real cover; it’s a commentary on the actual TIME cover. This could not be clearer.

And from there typical denier standards of evidence whisk it away to a truly fitting ultimate destination, The Fail.

(Do we assume the Greenpeace URL title is a little dig at the tabloids?)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
1) Many species have very tight bioclimatic envelopes and cannot adapt beyond a narrow range of conditions. Don’t believe me? Go study emperor penguins, or those dratted polar bears, or any of a whole suit of corals, or mountain pygmy possums, or golden toads. Go back a bit further in time and ask mammoths, and Neanderthals, and dinosaurs about adaptation.

2) Adaptive capacity is intended to cope with the natural variation of the environment in which the organisms have evolved. It is not an effective response to infrequent, extreme natural changes or stochastic events, or to unnatural alterations of the environment wrought by human activity.

3) Ecologists are acutely aware of species’ capacities or otherwise for adaptation, which is why global warming is such a concern
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

your text is complete bullshit: YOU KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LIFE IS ZERO. therefore you better shut up

all your environmental crap (polar bears, emperor penguins, etc etc) is pure nonsense, which you can’t believe yourself. nobody can be so stupid to believe such crap. have you ever visited a zoo in europe or the us and seen polar bears there??? you are really an unbearable idiot

“your text is complete bullshit: YOU KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LIFE IS ZERO. therefore you better shut up”

Or what, Freddy? You are going to come and get us?

Bernard of course is correct. Species all have evolved within defined thermal windows, a major factor that accounts for their differing geographic distributions. As biomes warm up, species have to respond to that: they do so by moving polewards or to higher elevations. There are many studies that have reported this pehnomenon in the past 20-30 years. Even the distributions of some plant species shows a polewards shift or else they are increasing in areas where they were once rare. One major impediment in polewards shifts is that organisms are facing a variety of topographical and anthopogenic barriers to traverse. The vast clearing of once-forested landscapes for agriculture as well as urban expanses makes it much more diffcult for some species, in particular those with poor dispersal capabiliites, to respond to rapid regional warming. And as I have said many times, biomes cannot merely shift with temperature, as there are all kinds of other biotic and abiotic parameters that will make transition zones subject to severe stress and possible collapse.

At the same time, local increases in termperature lead to reassembly of ecological communities and ecosytems. How this will play out is anybody’s guess. But to argue that regional warming will not deleteriously affect biodiversity is pure and utter nonsense. We know that it already is. Since Freddy cannot apparently read or write properly, he does not source the primary literature.

Freddy is completely nutters IMHO. He does not know anything about everything. Bernard and I are professional ecologists, and I just cannot sit here and read such puerile crap as that spewed out by Freddy go unchallenged.

all your environmental crap (polar bears, emperor penguins, etc etc) is pure nonsense, which you can’t believe yourself. nobody can be so stupid to believe such crap. have you ever visited a zoo in europe or the us and seen polar bears there???

Freddy, I’m not sure that you understand this, but bears in zoos were put there by humans, and humans ensure that the bears are provided with all of their food and other needs so that they can tolerate the temperature shift to which they are subjected. It’s what we clever folk all “an artificial environment”.

Contrast this to polar bear distribution in the wild. When was the last time you saw one wandering through a temperature forest, or in an equatorial desert? Why do you think that this is so? And why do you think that species have been driven to extinction by past climate change events if adaptability is the universal solution?

Bioclimatic envelopes are defined integrally, which means that extremes in one parameter can be somewhat off-set by optimisations in others – possible in artificial environments but vanishingly rare in the natural context.

Stop being a prat. You must be an obscene act, because no-one who had the intellectual development of a 4 year old and who could switch on the power for a computer could be as pig ignorant as you pretend to be.

And I use the example of a four year old deliberately. My own four year old daughter spontaneously told me last week – that is, without prompting (in case you don’t know what “spontaneously” means) – that the polar bears would have nowhere to live when the planet warms, as I explained was happening to the planet as a result of the gas that is produced by cars and power stations.

Yes, an intelligent four year old can, without prior help or preparation, nut this out… It says much about adults who bury their heads in the sand whenever my scientific colleagues and I try to educate such intellectually challenged individuals.

Whatever your game is freddy I hope that you’re proud of yourself, because sure as night follows day no-one else is the least bit impressed. If you’re fair dinkum then you shouldn’t be allowed near sharp objects or hot ones, and if you’re trying to poe then you’re serving no-one any benefit because you’re just gumming up the works.

Freddy is so far, far out in his world of make believe that one wonders if he is some kind of parody or benthic level comedian. Heck, even the dumbed-down AGW deniers on Deltoid are distancing themselves from him. Now that tells me more than anything.

Betula, *surely* you realise that you aren’t the smartest cookie in the jar?
*Surely* it is obvious to you in your day-to-day dealings with other people that most of them are a good deal cleverer than you are?

It’s not my logic…It’s Deltoid logic. Remember Bill, BDud is an Equal Opportunity Denier Beating Watcher, which makes me a homophobe…
Following this Deltoid logic, it would only make sense that Sloth, who mentions the word “Black” @ 23 in response to a comment about my brother, is a Racist. Of course, BDud thanks him for this comment at # 30, which, according to Deltoid logic, now make him a racist as well.

So now, according to Deltoid logic, BDud has proven that he is an Equal Opportunity Denier Beating Watching Racist.

Actually it is right, in fact, the toughest person I know is gay…he was a team leader that went to rescue a downed pilot in the Libya.
So are you now stereotyping gay people? Will BDud now label you a Homophobe for stereotyping? Will BDud want to watch you get beaten down? Oh, wait, that’s deniers….never mind.

Yup, you are correct. Problem is, Betula thinks he possesses razor-sharp wit and high intelligence. But when it comes to the science part of it, he repeatedly falls flat on his face. And his sharp wit is demonstrated by his monickers for me (Hardley) and BBD (B-Dud). Really, he thinks this is funny. Hilarious.

Hardl(e)y. Now there’s some irony. I also have yet to see him actually demonstrate that he knows anything about community and systems ecology as well as ecophysiology. So far he’s been striking out more prodigiously than Adam Dunn.

“Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades”

Oh Boy…

“Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process”

Poor BDud…

“The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established.”

I realise comprehension isn’t your strong suit, so go back and read the thread – and do so

S
L
O
W
L
Y

if it helps.

Hint: Your very own #21 indicates what you were attempting to defend yourself against when you freely offered that defence. (Or did you get someone else to write that comment for you and you don’t actually understand it?)

Let’s play you fucking Sadistic Homophobic Racist piece of shit:

Oh, my, you certainly have proceeded rather admirably!

From your above comment, you assume my brother is black, so according to your own logic you are a Racist.

You are really far more stupid than you give yourself credit for, aren’t you? I have assumed no such thing. It is, sadly, necessary to repeat myself:

I realise comprehension isn’t your strong suit, so go back and read the thread – and do so

S
L
O
W
L
Y

if it helps.

Hint: “The some of my best friends are black defence” is a type of defence that can be applied to bigotry OTHER than bigotry based on skin colour. It refers to the structure of the attempted defence, not to racism. It proceeds thus: “Some of my friends are black, therefore I can’t possibly be racist in any way.” The embedded fallacy is obvious to the majority people, but in your case I leave identification of it as an exercise for you, the reader.

Even bigger hint: if I’d ACTUALLY assumed your brother was black, I would have almost certainly have assumed that you were too – in which case I wouldn’t have been accusing you of being anti-black. (Sadly it is necessary to reiterate that I didn’t accuse you of that in the first place.)

According to your own logic, you didn’t condemn Freddy’s homophobic remark.you are a Homophobe.

You are REALLY bad at this logic thing, aren’t you?

My logic pointed out you ignored actual homophobia in order to try and smear someone else by dragging homosexuality into a discussion that wasn’t about homosexuality. If you can quote me (for example) dragging homosexuality into a discussion that wasn’t about that topic, I will own it. But I simply will not respond to your attempted manipulation of me via false equivalences in the way that you hope. I will instead continue to point out that you are (a) using false equivalences in an attempt to manipulate and (b) using fallacious logic. And I will further point out that you are doing all of this because you can’t substantiate your denial of the risks identified by climate science and you desperately wish to change the subject.

So, as I previously invited – with such resounding success – I now reissue the invitation. Please proceed.

BBD, science is not Betula’s strong suit. He just cannot get this ‘ferilization effect is good’ nonsense out of his simple little noggin. So he cites any source he can which essentially says no such thing but instead talks about increased plant biomass as if that is the be-all and end-all of the topic.

Of course scientists (like me) know better than to try and equate mass with fitness. Moreover, extra carbon in plant foods represents ‘junk food’ as C is NOT a limiting nutrient. Notice also how C:N:P ratios in plants are much higher than in consumers up the food chain – plants are lousy food as it is for most herbivores and increasing the C content in their tissues means that herbivores will have to work that much harder to shunt out the extra C to obtain the necessary N (which is indeed a limiting nutrient). This cannot generally be done metabolically, but simply put, herbivores are going to have to eat more to maintain metabolic equilibrium of C, N and other essential nutrients. And studies in elevated C02 plots are reporting just that – insect herbivores are compensating for increased foliar C by eating more just to ensure they get enough N in their diet.

I would go on to discuss C and N based allelochemistry, but why bother? Betula is stuck on the ‘C02 is plant food’ narrative and won’t budge an inch because to do so means admitting he was wrong. We all know he is but he won’t admit it. Any more than he will admit that his examples for the health and viability of ecosystems in New England -based on wild turkey reintroductions, white tailed deer and coyote numbers – stink (to be blunt). There are many examples of species found in the east that are in population freefall that paint a very different picture.

You’ve been crapping on about the growth response to CO2, and completely ignoring the repeated exhortations to consider the interactions with other factors that mean that there is not a simple relationship with increased atmospheric concentrations.

By you logic increased water should be just as good for all plants, in a monotically increasing response trajectory. You’re a branch sawyer so you should at least be able to manage these questions…

1) What happens directly to roots that are too wet?

2) What happens chemcially in soils that are waterlogged for extended periods?

3) What happens to flowers, buds and fuit when they’re exposed to increased intensity of rain/hail/snow?

4) What happens to many species’ fruit and stems when they take up increased quantities of water?

5) What happens to the aerial parts of many plant species if they’re exposed to excessive humidity, at different stages of their life cycles?

6) What happens to the internal solute balances of plants in increasingly wet conditions?

7) What happens (chemically and physically) when certain soils are subjected to increased flushing?

8) What is the import of some of the sequelæ arising from answers to the preceding question with respect to gross and fine soil structure?

9) What does increased water content mean for agricultural regions at harvest time?

10) What so all of the above mean for the premise that more water is better?

I could list more questions in the same vein, but given that your score for answering questions in any way that resembles a proper scientific/technical manner is 0 (zero %, there’s probably no point.

You’ll just clutch your old fella and suck your thumb and think of some new red herring with which to attempt distraction, as has always been your clumsy modus operandi.

“He just cannot get this ‘ferilization effect is good’ nonsense out of his simple little noggin. So he cites any source he can which essentially says no such thing but instead talks about increased plant biomass as if that is the be-all and end-all of the topic.”

Hardley. I see you put ‘ferilization effect is good’ in quotes. Where does that come from? Are you saying I said that, because it is a blatant lie. One of your many, which by the way I can back up. Now be a good retard and back it up…something none of you on this site seem to be capable of.

Try reading all the quotes I linked next time, you climate embellishing Weasel…with frostbite.

Here:

“The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established”

Hardly sounds like the “be-all and end-all of the topic” does it?

The fact is, once again Hardley, you don’t know how it fits into the equation…it’s unknown…..not good, not bad…unknown.You’re ideology, as well as BDuds, is blinding you from seeing otherwise.

In addition, your overinflated ego seems to be expanding faster than oceans. I predict a catastrophic scenario if we don’t find a way to fix the retardation perturbation.

You’ve been crapping on about the growth response to CO2, and completely ignoring the repeated exhortations to consider the interactions with other factors that mean that there is not a simple relationship with increased atmospheric concentrations.

By you logic increased water should be just as good for all plants, in a monotically increasing response trajectory. You’re a branch sawyer so you should at least be able to manage these questions…

1) What happens directly to roots that are too wet?

2) What happens chemcially in soils that are waterlogged for extended periods?

3) What happens to flowers, buds and fuit when they’re exposed to increased intensity of rain/hail/snow?

4) What happens to many species’ fruit and stems when they take up increased quantities of water?

5) What happens to the aerial parts of many plant species if they’re exposed to excessive humidity, at different stages of their life cycles?

6) What happens to the internal solute balances of plants in increasingly wet conditions?

7) What happens (chemically and physically) when certain soils are subjected to increased flushing?

8) What is the import of some of the sequelæ arising from answers to the preceding question with respect to gross and fine soil structure?

9) What does increased water content mean for agricultural regions at harvest time?

10) What do all of the above mean for the premise that more water is better?

I could list more questions in the same vein, but given that your score for answering questions in any way that resembles a proper scientific/technical manner is 0 (zero) %, there’s probably no point.

You’ll just clutch your old fella and suck your thumb and think of some new red herring with which to attempt distraction, as has always been your clumsy modus operandi.

Give it up. If you think I’m going to respond to 10 questions because you demand it, you’re out of your mind. The conclusion to all of them combined, is that the predicted future scenarios are predicated without all the data….i.e.: many unknowns.

Now, if you really need answers so badly that it hurts, here’s a little reading to help you identify some of the “naiveté” in your questions…

I really appreciate your comments (as well as your patience in combating several of these persistant idiots on Deltoid. I learn a lot from yoru posts. Keep up the good fight.

What you tend to find is that AGW deniers – and anti-environmentalists in general – hate scientists. Its simply because we are the ones who are producing the data and doing the resesarch and because the public by-and-large trusts scientists. When we speak out its likely that most lacking the relevant expertise will listen. But those with agendas certainly will not, and thus we scientists in their eyes are the primary target. Look at the abuse heaped upon such eminent shcolars as Michael Mann, James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich, Jared Diamond, and even Edward O. Wilson, merely for alerting society to the dangers of environmental problems mediated by human activities. They and others (including myself) are ritually smeared, ridiculed, etc, for speaking out. But I am used to it. It goes with the job.

I have read Betula’s comments and I am not afraid to say they belie a very poor understanding of ecology and the environment. Of course he doesn’t like being challenged, but tough: if I see people saying things that are plainly incorrect, I will call them out on it.

I know the answers to all of my questions. I put them to you to determine the level of your understaing of the subject matter, and you steadfastly and singularly demonstrate that you cannot answer very basic questions. Whether you do so because you do not know the answers, or because you do know the answers but that you also know that to answer them puts in in an untenable conflict with your denialist stance… well, that’s up to the third parties reading this thread.

If you are going to make claims, basic propositions that conflict with expert scientific understanding, you should stump up some hard evidence by way of support. You have shown that you are consistently incapable of doing this. Whichever way it’s sliced you’re a useless tool who cannot back up an argument with his own words, and who constantly relies on discredited pseudoscientific links in a forlorn attempt to disguise his ineptitude.

You demonstrate no relationship between the answers to those questions and your conclusion that there are unknowns. The latter is trivially obvious and explicitly stated by mainstream science, and is completed beside the point of my questions about signal and noise.

And thanks for proving me right in my prediction that you would avoid the answers. You are nothing if not predictable in your behaviour…

…and on that I seem to be able to predict that behaviour with stunning accuracy for all that there is much about you that I don’t know. Which only goes to prove another point – can you guess what that is?

Those questions could be easily answered by any first year university student studying plant physiology. If you wrote those responses in an exam I’d fail you immediately and with no recourse to appeal, with no hesitation.

Do you not understand the basic principles of appropriate generalisation, of representative sampling, and of inferring the intent of the questioner from the context of the questions?

Here’s a clue for the next time you go out to saw a branch off a tree – don’t hold the shiny end with all of the zigzaggy teeth…

“on that I seem to be able to predict that behaviour with stunning accuracy for all that there is much about you that I don’t know”

Actually, I’m able to predict yours…like your end around on refusing to call Jeff out on his lie by feigning a lack of knowledge on the issue i.e. not reading his paper…a very simple thing to do. Or loading the board with time consuming questions to take the subject off of those who want to watch people get beaten or those who are witnessing shifting zones for real while obtaining frostbite.

Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula yet again tries out his pipsqueak Torquemada via Ahab routine on some impressions (not a report) posted in a blog comment section.

Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula cannot contemplate the fact that AGW is real and must sail off in his Pequod to burn any heretic who suggests it is.

Unfortunately for him, Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula isn’t the least equipped to pursue either metaphor and so is condemned for all eternity to sniff albatross butt. Which accounts for the disposition we see here.

Btw, Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula – what the fuck is wrong with you?
Child deniers?
Seriously, what is fucking wrong with you?

“If you wrote those responses in an exam I’d fail you immediately and with no recourse to appeal, with no hesitation.”

That’s the problem, you need to get out in the real world. You can’t generalize a plants response on paper. Look at the plant structure, the species, the location, the soil structure, the competition, the maturity, the micro environment, the overall health.

You are stuck in academia….just as I predicted, with “stunning accuracy”

Now, if you were to come work for me, with your arrogant attitude, seething with ideology and over generalizations, I would fire you “immediately and with no recourse to appeal, with no hesitation”.

Actually, I might give you until the end of next week, I’m nice like that…

Give it up. If you think I’m going to respond to 10 questions because you demand it, you’re out of your mind. The conclusion to all of them combined, is that the predicted future scenarios are predicated without all the data….i.e.: many unknowns.

In the region of 2.5 – 3C per doubling of CO2. See “known paleoclimate behaviour”. References repeatedly provided.

As any honest person knows perfectly well, we aren’t talking about gay children with Downs Syndrome or little old ladies. We are talking about white, middle-aged, conservative wingnuts who spend a disproportionate amount of time peddling lies on the internet.

We are talking about the clueless but voluble, the aficionados of denialist chum-buckets like WTFUWT (and probably readers of the WSJ too), the always-on, the tenacious, the tireless and the utterly wrong.

In summary, we are talking about you, Betty.

You can wish it away, but it will do no good in the end. The science-denying right is digging its own grave with its bare hands. When the climate shit hits the economic fan, the public will be frightened and angry and looking for scapegoats. Guess who will be right smack in the frame? Oh yes.

Best not go shouting in the street about your part in the denial circus then, Betty. But you wouldn’t have the balls, would you? You won’t even admit to your lies and denial here when directly confronted over it.

An estimated temperature, which will result in a predicted climate based on many unknowns. You are talking predicted temperature, I am talking about the predicted climate reactions to the predicted temperature.

You are talking “known” past behavior (also filled with assumptions), and assuming future behavior, based on more assumptions and unknowns (i.e. CO2 Fert for one)

If it the future were known, then you wouldn’t be talking about predictions would you?

I’m trying to establish how the kind of petty-minded sick fuck like Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula thinks up the concept of a “child denier”, even when backed into a corner.
The single-minded pursuit of ideology as a substitute for reality seems a peculiarly unbalanced, but adult trait to me.

More words that Betty-John mysteriously ignores in his OCD pursuit of nothing:

As any honest person knows perfectly well, we aren’t talking about gay children with Downs Syndrome or little old ladies. We are talking about white, middle-aged, conservative wingnuts who spend a disproportionate amount of time peddling lies on the internet.

We are talking about the clueless but voluble, the aficionados of denialist chum-buckets like WTFUWT (and probably readers of the WSJ too), the always-on, the tenacious, the tireless and the utterly wrong.

You can wish it away, but it will do no good in the end. The science-denying right is digging its own grave with its bare hands. When the climate shit hits the economic fan, the public will be frightened and angry and looking for scapegoats. Guess who will be right smack in the frame? Oh yes.

Best not go shouting in the street about your part in the denial circus then, Betty. But you wouldn’t have the balls, would you? You won’t even admit to your lies and denial here when directly confronted over it.

When it comes, the fury of the public backlash against you and your lying denialist chums will be terrifying. And in your heart of hearts, you know this.

You will be metaphorically beaten in the streets of public opinion.

Can we stop being as literal minded as a bucket for rhetorical effect now Betty? It’s getting really tedious.